We really need some details about pre-Gears 4. Because JD told his DB's to fire BEFORE Fahz did. Fahz followed JD's lead. They both claim the protestors were using lethal weapons, but that is the oldest cop lie in the world so... I'm not sure if we're meant to believe it or not. Then when they return, JD goes out of his way to antagonize and shit on Fahz for... doing the same thing he did, AFTER he did it, but being more noticed as having done it? Fahz is totally in the right to shit on JD for it and is pretty generous to forgive him and want to buddy up to the squad anyway.
+1
BRIAN BLESSEDMaybe you aren't SPEAKING LOUDLY ENOUGHHHRegistered Userregular
I mean Fahz is also just an unrepentant piece of shit about the people who died so it's not like he can claim some moral high ground about it lol
They both claim the protestors were using lethal weapons, but that is the oldest cop lie in the world so... I'm not sure if we're meant to believe it or not
There is a big difference between "They had guns!" (that were conveniently never fired) and "They were throwing fire bombs". Fire bombs are going to obviously leave a lot more evidence of their existence. Perhaps the correct question is why the DeeBee's didn't have something other than Enforcers? Something which I don't really think was the soldiers call. I'm of the opinion that you can not put all of the blame on JD and Fahz if the protesters chose to throw fire bombs. Could they have handled it differently? Probably, but it takes two to tango as they say.
They both claim the protestors were using lethal weapons, but that is the oldest cop lie in the world so... I'm not sure if we're meant to believe it or not
There is a big difference between "They had guns!" (that were conveniently never fired) and "They were throwing fire bombs". Fire bombs are going to obviously leave a lot more evidence of their existence. Perhaps the correct question is why the DeeBee's didn't have something other than Enforcers? Something which I don't really think was the soldiers call. I'm of the opinion that you can not put all of the blame on JD and Fahz if the protesters chose to throw fire bombs. Could they have handled it differently? Probably, but it takes two to tango as they say.
Well both Dell and Kait immediately reject the idea that fire bombs were used. So that implies they weren't, since yeah, there should be evidence of it if it was true. The DB's should have pretty clear recordings if JD and Fahz were justified in what they were doing or if they just panicked, in fact.
I mean Fahz is also just an unrepentant piece of shit about the people who died so it's not like he can claim some moral high ground about it lol
At it's most simple level, I think Fahz--and pretty much all the Gears, or at least all the professional career Gears-in-uniform and not people thrown into bizarre circumstances like Kait Diaz on one end and Major Parduk on the other hand--are something of a metaphor for the "Support the Troops" personality cult that exists in the United States and maybe more broadly in the Anglophone world.
Namely, the Anglophone world (or at least the United States), has enjoyed wars of largely (or completely) voluntary discretion, because Iraq or Libya aren't really going to invade Manhattan or London, Operation Overlord-style, and in fact have very limited abilities to threaten those homelands (and whether or not they do, are basically subject to immediate and even disproportionate retaliation, like the whole fact we were basically at war in Iraq throughout the entirety of the 1990s, periodically blowing up military installations and deciding how much food and medicine got into the country). This is separate but related to the topic of whether those wars were morally justifiable--they were, in fact, as voluntary as any war in history. Likewise, the fact that in the Anglophone military forces those who enlist do so voluntarily--albeit probably under some economic motivation or distress and not just patriotic fervor--puts a potential added responsibility. It's not like the United States is the only country that fights in wars (in just happens to fight in the most wars), but the vast majority of fighting troops in the armies of Russia, Iran, Taiwan, North and South Korea, etc., are not volunteers but conscripts, and not there as a matter of choice (separate from those who volunteered under similar motivations, economic or social, as among Americans), puts their circumstances in a different light than that of the United States (or the UK or Australia).
So, we know some American troops in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or parts of Africa, or occasionally Pakistan, etc., sometimes do terrible things, or are otherwise associated with atrocities, not that unlike the Gears under the authority of the COG--despite the best efforts of our government to the contrary. Nonetheless, you are to "Support the Troops" as a matter of basic public decency and acknowledgement of the burden they have taken on that you, a civilian, have not. And yes, that's still true if they fired into a crowd of angry Afghans or Iraqis, as we know has happened. Plenty of us know people in the armed forces--shit, I was a conscript in the Taiwanese R.O.C.A. (though like literally everyone else in that army, I never went abroad and sat in a barracks in what was probably an enormous waste of time), and I have friends who volunteered and are currently undergoing service in the United States Army, including on a career path. Gears is taking that longstanding dilemma and shoving it into our faces in a less subtle manner.
Also, even though I'm pretty sure he has a minimum (or maybe no) remorse of having done very bad things, the sort of things done by the Allied occupation in Iraq, I still think Fahz is a hilarious and very entertaining character thanks to Rahul "Hollywood's Badboy" Khouli's masterful performance.
They both claim the protestors were using lethal weapons, but that is the oldest cop lie in the world so... I'm not sure if we're meant to believe it or not
There is a big difference between "They had guns!" (that were conveniently never fired) and "They were throwing fire bombs". Fire bombs are going to obviously leave a lot more evidence of their existence. Perhaps the correct question is why the DeeBee's didn't have something other than Enforcers? Something which I don't really think was the soldiers call. I'm of the opinion that you can not put all of the blame on JD and Fahz if the protesters chose to throw fire bombs. Could they have handled it differently? Probably, but it takes two to tango as they say.
Well both Dell and Kait immediately reject the idea that fire bombs were used. So that implies they weren't, since yeah, there should be evidence of it if it was true. The DB's should have pretty clear recordings if JD and Fahz were justified in what they were doing or if they just panicked, in fact.
Actually, they don't. I just went back and watched the cinematics and the first time Fahz mentions the fire bombs JD shuts down the discussion, but Del didn't seem inclined to challenge the point. The second time when the reveal happens JD again mentions the fire bombs and all Del and Kait did was give him judgemental looks.
Clearly it's something JD regrets but the protesters were not blameless and they can't change what happened. I would go so far as to say that Del and Kait refuse to acknowledge the protesters culpability in what happened.
Edit: I will say this is based on what is in Gears 5. If Del and Kait give another take on it in a different medium I am unaware of it.
Gears of War was released 16 years ago today and to mark the occasion, Netflix has partnered with The Coalition to adapt the Gears of War video game saga into a live action feature film, followed by an adult animated series — with the potential for more stories to follow!
Gears of War: E-Day announced. Looks like a prequel with Marcus and Dom, which is funny because they've done this already with Baird and Cole. No release date so don't expect it anytime soon. Also makes me wonder where the fuck Gears 6 is. Also interesting that they've seem to have abandoned the "It's not Gears of War, it's just Gears now" naming convention.
EDIT: Also that movie announcement really went nowhere, didn't it?
Undead Scottsman on
+3
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
edited June 9
Doing the instrumental / orchestral version of mad world was a nice touch.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
+1
Golden YakBurnished BovineThe sunny beaches of CanadaRegistered Userregular
Prequel, blech!
I'm a sucker for a narrative that doesn't end and have fond memories of that first trilogy - there are neat elements to the setting. But you gotta move it forwards or I just can't muster up the interest.
I'm excited to see Marcus and Dom again, but we already know how this story ends so it's hard to get excited for that part.
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I just watvhed Noah Caldwell Gervais' breakdown (never played a Gears game), and it seemed like they did actually interesting stuff
+2
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
Honestly I have really mixed feelings. The last time they did a prequel, Judgement, it kinda sucked and was after the incredible ending of Gears of War 3. I'm not clear where the current timeline is, as I'm still going through Gears 4 with my woife and will start 5 soon, but I'm not sure how excited I will be about doing the same things all over again I already know the answers to. It reeks a bit of desperation and a trying to avoid whatever the consequences of the 5th game in the series are.
Honestly I have really mixed feelings. The last time they did a prequel, Judgement, it kinda sucked and was after the incredible ending of Gears of War 3. I'm not clear where the current timeline is, as I'm still going through Gears 4 with my woife and will start 5 soon, but I'm not sure how excited I will be about doing the same things all over again I already know the answers to. It reeks a bit of desperation and a trying to avoid whatever the consequences of the 5th game in the series are.
Judgement was People Can Fly, and imo, a large part of the reason it wasn't great was because of the writing, which is a well known issue with that studio, based on all their games. Meanwhile, I think The Coalition's games have been better written than some of the Epic ones, frankly.
Judgment was fine, it was just an odd duck because it was a game nobody asked for, experimented with gameplay a bit too much and tried to make the gameplay more like other shooters, and then added a weird score system on top. It's not Gears has ever had a good storyline, especially Gears of Read My Novels 3.
Honestly, the worst part was the "We're adding in stuff from the later games to this prequel that take splace 14 years before the first game. Why do you have chainsaw lancers and Kantus' showing up? Uhh.. it's classified, that's why!"
I was frustrated with the ending of 5 for many reasons. I absolutely loved most of 5, for me it was the most interesting and the most thematically rich the series has ever been. And then the ending kind of said “nope, we’re not interested in any of those themes going forward.” And it kind of deflated me.
While a prequel is kind of a bummer, I think it makes sense from a marketing and sales perspective. My guess is they’re worried about people who have played 4 and 5, or frankly younger generations who haven’t played any, and the many people who feel they can’t buy a potential 6 until they’ve played the previous ones. So it makes sense in this climate of studio shutdowns and hedged bets.
I think the studio overall produces fantastic quality work so I’m sure it’ll be a great game regardless and I hope it does well
Gears 4 was better than it should of been. Gears 5 was okay, I think the open world idea let the game down and there were a few story decisions I didn't agree with.
Namely:
Kait's connection to the Hive was interesting and taking it away less than a whole game after it was introduced was lame
Having her mom come back from the dead was also lame. If you are going to bring someone back make it the Locust Queen who is recognizable and was never really fleshed out.
The ending also left them in a tough spot of how do we go forward? Do you do a Wolfenstein thing where your choice effects what companion you get? Your side kicks in Gears usually get more time along side you than in that game.
0
Dark Raven XLaugh hard, run fast,be kindRegistered Userregular
I really dig the vibe of that E-Day trailer tbh. Having it be such a struggle to fight one Drone, a guy we've killed thousands of at this point, sets the tone very well. Marcus ain't a grizzled veteran, he doesn't know what the fuck is happening. Then the building collapses and the world is ending. I don't think a Gears prequel is very interesting on paper but I am thoroughly piqued!
Is that going to translate to the game, though? Are they just going to make the Locust super bullet spongey or do jump scare bullshit or what?
I'd need to see a lot more before I can say anything.
0
Dark Raven XLaugh hard, run fast,be kindRegistered Userregular
I do kinda doubt they'll mix it up too much, if they're cowarding out on moving the story forward. Probably gonna hew close to Gears 1, maybe nudged slightly more towards horror/survival.
It'd be interesting if it becomes a gameplay thing like lancer bayonets breaking when you stab them (balanced by finding a lot of discarded lancers lying around to re-arm), but I assume the chainsaw will show up sooner rather than later.
I assume it'll build up to the point where they have to obliterate most of the surface, so that'll be tough to get right. Their justification for it is that they were hours away from being completely overrun, so you're really going to have to feel like you're fighting a losing battle for it to not feel cheap,
I think what most excites me is just visually hopefully we’ll get to see more of the world before it fell. Like yes it was still after the civil war but I’m looking forward to less of a post apocalypse vibe and more of a apocalypse as it’s happening, plus I just think the like neo gothic architecture of their cities and world is cool as hell so I’m looking forward to that. While I would love 6 I honestly cant fault them for going to this setting and I feel like it has a better chance of selling more and onboarding old fans and new
I'm just... kind of done with retreads. Like, honestly, I want to be done with Gears. I waned 6 to finish out that trilogy and have the Coalition move to something new. (I'm still mad that unannounced project didn't happen) and maybe put out a Gears Tactics sequel, sure. But it's been nearly five years since Gears 5 and no resolution, and it's probably gong to be another five now, given E-day isn't coming any sooner than 2026 and possibly later.
My head just isn't in the Locust era anymore. I know how it started, I know how it ended. They popped that ballon, I know where the Locust come from now. We know where the monster comes from and now all that's left is to kill it.
My head is in the Swarm era. I want to kill that Queen and end the enemies I've been fighting since 2006 once and for all.
+2
BRIAN BLESSEDMaybe you aren't SPEAKING LOUDLY ENOUGHHHRegistered Userregular
Yeah, I'm always reasonably excited to get more Gears with my friends, but this announcement just feels like a ploy to appeal to the nostalgia from the old guard who are put off by the aesthetics of the sequels and nothing more, which to me is kind of a vapid and vacuous reason to make a game.
Gears 5 (and 4, but mostly 5) absolutely doesn't get enough credit for all the things it does narratively for the franchise, especially now that so many people have come out of the woodwork to complain again about how they miss the horror aesthetic. Some of the introspection it does in regards to its worldbuilding, teasing out loose threads hanging in the background since Gears of War 2 and 3, are the perfect example of how a sequel can elevate its previous games with a newer appreciation of a more complete lore.
I think the decision to set the series in a post-post-apocalypse, in a reconstruction period, is actually incredibly bold, especially given how so many franchises (especially Microsoft ones) are given to rehashing the same aesthetic over and over again because so many of their fans are hard-wired to only enjoy mild variations of the same thing and will vehemently oppose this kind of change. But there's so much to dig deep into in a post-war setting, an examination of the fascism and cruelty that underlies the entire society in Gears, that I think other series like Halo never gets the chance to properly explore, and it's so fucking cool that The Coalition got the chance to do that instead of just relive the Greatest Hits of 2006. It's profoundly disappointing that so many people are missing the forest for the trees when it comes to 5's writing, it's so brilliantly subversive in the confines of its setting and how it straight up reinterprets common tropes and traditions from previous games to do that
Posts
There is a big difference between "They had guns!" (that were conveniently never fired) and "They were throwing fire bombs". Fire bombs are going to obviously leave a lot more evidence of their existence. Perhaps the correct question is why the DeeBee's didn't have something other than Enforcers? Something which I don't really think was the soldiers call. I'm of the opinion that you can not put all of the blame on JD and Fahz if the protesters chose to throw fire bombs. Could they have handled it differently? Probably, but it takes two to tango as they say.
Well both Dell and Kait immediately reject the idea that fire bombs were used. So that implies they weren't, since yeah, there should be evidence of it if it was true. The DB's should have pretty clear recordings if JD and Fahz were justified in what they were doing or if they just panicked, in fact.
At it's most simple level, I think Fahz--and pretty much all the Gears, or at least all the professional career Gears-in-uniform and not people thrown into bizarre circumstances like Kait Diaz on one end and Major Parduk on the other hand--are something of a metaphor for the "Support the Troops" personality cult that exists in the United States and maybe more broadly in the Anglophone world.
Namely, the Anglophone world (or at least the United States), has enjoyed wars of largely (or completely) voluntary discretion, because Iraq or Libya aren't really going to invade Manhattan or London, Operation Overlord-style, and in fact have very limited abilities to threaten those homelands (and whether or not they do, are basically subject to immediate and even disproportionate retaliation, like the whole fact we were basically at war in Iraq throughout the entirety of the 1990s, periodically blowing up military installations and deciding how much food and medicine got into the country). This is separate but related to the topic of whether those wars were morally justifiable--they were, in fact, as voluntary as any war in history. Likewise, the fact that in the Anglophone military forces those who enlist do so voluntarily--albeit probably under some economic motivation or distress and not just patriotic fervor--puts a potential added responsibility. It's not like the United States is the only country that fights in wars (in just happens to fight in the most wars), but the vast majority of fighting troops in the armies of Russia, Iran, Taiwan, North and South Korea, etc., are not volunteers but conscripts, and not there as a matter of choice (separate from those who volunteered under similar motivations, economic or social, as among Americans), puts their circumstances in a different light than that of the United States (or the UK or Australia).
So, we know some American troops in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or parts of Africa, or occasionally Pakistan, etc., sometimes do terrible things, or are otherwise associated with atrocities, not that unlike the Gears under the authority of the COG--despite the best efforts of our government to the contrary. Nonetheless, you are to "Support the Troops" as a matter of basic public decency and acknowledgement of the burden they have taken on that you, a civilian, have not. And yes, that's still true if they fired into a crowd of angry Afghans or Iraqis, as we know has happened. Plenty of us know people in the armed forces--shit, I was a conscript in the Taiwanese R.O.C.A. (though like literally everyone else in that army, I never went abroad and sat in a barracks in what was probably an enormous waste of time), and I have friends who volunteered and are currently undergoing service in the United States Army, including on a career path. Gears is taking that longstanding dilemma and shoving it into our faces in a less subtle manner.
Also, even though I'm pretty sure he has a minimum (or maybe no) remorse of having done very bad things, the sort of things done by the Allied occupation in Iraq, I still think Fahz is a hilarious and very entertaining character thanks to Rahul "Hollywood's Badboy" Khouli's masterful performance.
Actually, they don't. I just went back and watched the cinematics and the first time Fahz mentions the fire bombs JD shuts down the discussion, but Del didn't seem inclined to challenge the point. The second time when the reveal happens JD again mentions the fire bombs and all Del and Kait did was give him judgemental looks.
Clearly it's something JD regrets but the protesters were not blameless and they can't change what happened. I would go so far as to say that Del and Kait refuse to acknowledge the protesters culpability in what happened.
Edit: I will say this is based on what is in Gears 5. If Del and Kait give another take on it in a different medium I am unaware of it.
Gears of War: E-Day announced. Looks like a prequel with Marcus and Dom, which is funny because they've done this already with Baird and Cole. No release date so don't expect it anytime soon. Also makes me wonder where the fuck Gears 6 is. Also interesting that they've seem to have abandoned the "It's not Gears of War, it's just Gears now" naming convention.
EDIT: Also that movie announcement really went nowhere, didn't it?
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I'm a sucker for a narrative that doesn't end and have fond memories of that first trilogy - there are neat elements to the setting. But you gotta move it forwards or I just can't muster up the interest.
Judgement was People Can Fly, and imo, a large part of the reason it wasn't great was because of the writing, which is a well known issue with that studio, based on all their games. Meanwhile, I think The Coalition's games have been better written than some of the Epic ones, frankly.
Honestly, the worst part was the "We're adding in stuff from the later games to this prequel that take splace 14 years before the first game. Why do you have chainsaw lancers and Kantus' showing up? Uhh.. it's classified, that's why!"
While a prequel is kind of a bummer, I think it makes sense from a marketing and sales perspective. My guess is they’re worried about people who have played 4 and 5, or frankly younger generations who haven’t played any, and the many people who feel they can’t buy a potential 6 until they’ve played the previous ones. So it makes sense in this climate of studio shutdowns and hedged bets.
I think the studio overall produces fantastic quality work so I’m sure it’ll be a great game regardless and I hope it does well
Namely:
Having her mom come back from the dead was also lame. If you are going to bring someone back make it the Locust Queen who is recognizable and was never really fleshed out.
The ending also left them in a tough spot of how do we go forward? Do you do a Wolfenstein thing where your choice effects what companion you get? Your side kicks in Gears usually get more time along side you than in that game.
I'd need to see a lot more before I can say anything.
It'd be interesting if it becomes a gameplay thing like lancer bayonets breaking when you stab them (balanced by finding a lot of discarded lancers lying around to re-arm), but I assume the chainsaw will show up sooner rather than later.
I assume it'll build up to the point where they have to obliterate most of the surface, so that'll be tough to get right. Their justification for it is that they were hours away from being completely overrun, so you're really going to have to feel like you're fighting a losing battle for it to not feel cheap,
My head just isn't in the Locust era anymore. I know how it started, I know how it ended. They popped that ballon, I know where the Locust come from now. We know where the monster comes from and now all that's left is to kill it.
My head is in the Swarm era. I want to kill that Queen and end the enemies I've been fighting since 2006 once and for all.
Gears 5 (and 4, but mostly 5) absolutely doesn't get enough credit for all the things it does narratively for the franchise, especially now that so many people have come out of the woodwork to complain again about how they miss the horror aesthetic. Some of the introspection it does in regards to its worldbuilding, teasing out loose threads hanging in the background since Gears of War 2 and 3, are the perfect example of how a sequel can elevate its previous games with a newer appreciation of a more complete lore.
I think the decision to set the series in a post-post-apocalypse, in a reconstruction period, is actually incredibly bold, especially given how so many franchises (especially Microsoft ones) are given to rehashing the same aesthetic over and over again because so many of their fans are hard-wired to only enjoy mild variations of the same thing and will vehemently oppose this kind of change. But there's so much to dig deep into in a post-war setting, an examination of the fascism and cruelty that underlies the entire society in Gears, that I think other series like Halo never gets the chance to properly explore, and it's so fucking cool that The Coalition got the chance to do that instead of just relive the Greatest Hits of 2006. It's profoundly disappointing that so many people are missing the forest for the trees when it comes to 5's writing, it's so brilliantly subversive in the confines of its setting and how it straight up reinterprets common tropes and traditions from previous games to do that